No Deliberate Omission: Kerala HC Discharges Doctor Who Failed To Inform Offence Under POCSO Act To Police
The Kerala High Court, while discharging a doctor who examined the minor victim, observed that failure to inform the matter to police within a period of 7.15 hours alone is not sufficient for fastening criminal culpability on him.
The Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “Failure to inform the matter within a period of 7.15 hours alone is not sufficient to hold that there was failure to report the same to the Police. In may view, in order to fasten criminal culpability upon a person for failure to report to the Police regarding commission of offence under the POCSO Act and to make omission to report the same, as an offence punishable under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act, there must be a deliberate omission to be gathered from the records. It is to be born in mind that, doctors are persons engaged in treating patients of multiple numbers, including patients who would require urgent attention, to save their lives.”
Advocates S. Rajeev and M.S. Aneer appeared for the Revisionist-Doctor whereas PP Renjit George appeared for the Respondent.
A revision petition was filed by the Revisionist-Doctor under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the order passed by the Special Court for the offences punishable under Section 19(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (‘POCSO Act’).
The Revisionist-Doctor assailed the order of dismissal passed by the lower court refusing to allow his plea seeking discharge from the offence.
It was alleged that when the victim was 17 years old, she visited a hospital where the doctor examined her and found that she was pregnant. The father of the victim, who was allegedly responsible for the pregnancy threatened the victim, not to disclose this occurrence and stated that, if so, he would commit suicide. Later, the father took her to another hospital where a doctor examined her and stated that abortion could not be performed therein and directed them to go to a different hospital located at Mangalapuram where the Revisionist-Doctor was a doctor.
The specific allegation against the Revisionist-Doctor was that, even after obtaining the scan report and having knowledge regarding the pregnancy of the minor victim, the same was not informed to the Police and accordingly he committed the offence punishable under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act.
The Court noted that after noticing the pregnancy of the minor victim, a Court witness informed the Police and accordingly on the next day the Police reached Nursing Home and registered the crime. Therefore, the time gap between the arrival of the victim at the Hospital with the scan report and the arrival of the Police is between 11.45 am and 7.00 pm. In such a case, the Court said it could not be held that the Revisionist-Doctor willfully failed to report the matter, since the Police reached the hospital within 7.15 hours, while the victim was still at the hospital.
The Court held, “Thus, going through the statutory wording under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act, it is emphatically clear that a duty is cast upon a person, who has apprehension that an offence under this Act is likely to be committed or has knowledge that such an offence has been committed, to provide such information to the Police. But, when a person notices that an offence under the POCSO Act has been committed and failed to inform the same within a reasonable time, definitely he said to have committed offence punishable under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act.”
The Court said that a reasonable time should be given to the doctors to inform such incidents Police and viewing the duties of a doctor in this plank the doctor failed to inform about the pregnancy of a minor girl, within a period of 7.15 hours from the time of his knowledge, by the time, Police reached the hospital and soon crime was registered. It further said that in such a case, criminal culpability cannot be imposed upon the doctor because he did not get a reasonable time to inform the matter to Police since the matter was already informed by another doctor and on the said information, the Police reached the hospital and registered the crime.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order of dismissal and the Revisionist-doctor was discharged from the offence.
Cause Title: XXXX v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:53255)
Appearances:
Revision Petitioner: Advocates S. Rajeev, M.S. Aneer, V. Vinay, Anil Kumar C.R., Prerith Philip Joseph and Sarath K. P.
Respondent: PP Renjit George